On 11-06-11 at 03:07pm, Dan S wrote:
> It would be great if others can comment - anyone?

I did a quick look (don't expect much involvement - am involved in too
much at the moment already, and have some deadlines in RL too).
This looks bad:
> # The build system apparently can't handle this
> CXXFLAGS =
That and the DEB_SCONS_OPTIONS above it seems to indicate that it does
not follow Debian Policy §4.9.1. Only a recommendation apparently, but I
am uncertain if that only is _how_ to do it (i.e. DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS
hinting) while the underlying mechanisms (e.g. ability to build without
optimizations or without stripping binaries) is a must.
The -doc package should probably suggest the main package. Similarly
for the editor plugin packages (suggestions are too weak to cause a
"domino effect" so are in my opinion best to declare explicitly).
Oh, and why do editor plugins recommend -doc package? Seems they are
tools to write code, not closely related to the documentation of the
tool, so should perhaps be lowered to a suggestion.
And I guess main packages not suggest/recommend -doc package too.
What is the most proper build-dependency for jack these days? Here it
is "libjack-dev (>= 0.100) | libjack-jackd2-dev", which as I believe is
not wrong but seem to recall can be satisfied by a simpler dependency.
The clean rule does not fully cleanup. These files was left behind:
common/.sconf_temp/
common/.sconsign.dblite
common/config.log
I will do an analysis on copyrights/licenses now - and hope not to find
anything controversial there....
Regards,
- Jonas
--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private